Create a beta recruitment criterion to define tester eligibility rules for TestFlight betas in App Store Connect.
POST /v1/betaRecruitmentCriteria (POST /v1/betaRecruitmentCriteria) Body shape: see OpenAPI components.schemas.BetaRecruitmentCriterionCreateRequest for the full JSON:API envelope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | JSON body. Shape: components.schemas.BetaRecruitmentCriterionCreateRequest. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only gives the endpoint and a schema reference; it says nothing about authentication requirements, side effects, idempotency, validation behavior, or what happens on success.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the endpoint. However, it redundantly repeats the same endpoint in parentheses and adds little useful structure beyond the bare path.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a create operation with a nested JSON:API body and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. Pointing to an external OpenAPI component may not be actionable for the agent, and no behavior or response context is provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% description coverage and already documents the single body parameter, including the referenced shape. The description repeats the schema reference but adds no additional semantic meaning about the body contents.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the HTTP method and endpoint path for creating a beta recruitment criterion, which is enough to infer the basic purpose. However, it does not describe what a beta recruitment criterion is or differentiate this tool from sibling update/delete operations beyond the raw endpoint.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as beta_recruitment_criteria_update_instance or related beta-group operations. The only usage signal is the POST endpoint, which is implicit rather than explanatory.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.